|
We Asked; You Said
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 59
We asked:
This winter, about 10 percent of the population of North Korea will stop receiving food rations
from the World Food Program. The UN agency reported that donor nations have only granted 62
percent of the food donations it requested this year. In part, this reluctance to contribute seems
due to international frustration with the North Korean government’s apparent preference to spend
its meager funds on weapons--including weapons of mass destruction--and leave its starving
population to be fed by outside charities. Is this response by the international community
justified? Should innocents suffer for the sins of their leaders, or is it worth it in the long run to
place pressure on a government that stands as a major obstacle to world peace? (One may say
that if we conducted ourselves differently, we would have never arrived at this Sophie’s Choice.
But here we are.)
Here are the responses we received.
***********************************************************
My understanding is that much of the food aid is diverted to feed North Korean military
personnel and never reaches the general population, let alone those who for political reasons are
starved by the North Korean government. You might want to review the Oct. 22, 2003 report by
the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea entitled "The Hidden Gulag: Exposing
North Korea's Prison Camps", available at http://www.hrnk.org. At page 24 the report notes that
"[t]he prisoners [in the prison camps] live under brutal conditions in permanent situations of
deliberately contrived semi-starvation." Eye-witness accounts are included in the report.
It is not surprising that under such circumstances donor nations would be reluctant to give.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
Malibu, CA
I believe that to punish a people who are not responsible for the aggravation and sins perpetrated
by their leaders is morally reprehensible. There are ways of putting pressure on another
government that do not violate innocent people. And negotiations, however exhausting they may
seem, are always preferable to inhumanities. I say this as one who continues to believe that
nuclear weapons continue to threaten the survival of our planet and ought to be eliminated from
the world promptly and multilaterally.
Ronald E. Santoni
Maria Theresa Barney Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Denison University
Granville, OH
I think you pose the question in a simple fashion, when it is in fact a complex and invariably
multivariate question. Are we all responsible for the actions of Bush/Cheney/Scalia, et al? Yes,
to some extent. No, we want to cry out, because we didn't vote for them. We are "good
Americans." (Remember the "good Germans"?) Are we absolutely positive that we have hold of
the entire truth and the "bad Americans" none? I see signs that say "War is not the answer." But I
remember World War II. And I remember Milosevic. It is particularly tragic when an "innocent"
population is held to suffer because of the actions of an inhumane dictatorial government. But do
North Koreans have any responsibility for the actions of their own government? Yes, in my view.
Certainly not totally. I'd be very happy to give you a simple answer. But complex questions don't
lend themselves to simple answers.
Paul H. Ephross, Ph.D., Professor
University of Maryland School of Social Work
Baltimore, MD
This dilemma reminds me of situations we often have in teaching in our schools, or working in
community based programs (like youth sports leagues). It goes like this: Parents often neglect to
follow through on their basic responsibilities in supporting their children. There may be many
reasons for this--some good and some bad. Even so, when institutions confront the problems that
this loss of responsibility engenders, they make rules that punish the children so as to make the
point to the parents. Nine times out of ten, the parents remain unaware that anything has changed,
but their children find themselves in even worse circumstances.
The people of North Korea are not to be compared exactly in this patronizing way, and the
choices of the United States and others in the International Community are on a different scale as
those of faltering parents, but the consequences are similar and the logic is equally flawed.
Powerful institutions and people continually punish the victims, when in fact the problems
caused by irresponsible behavior by the North Korean government (and in likewise situations) lie
with the leadership. Frankly, there are few cases where the leadership of rogue states who
threaten the world is changed by complacently ignoring the misery of their victim populations.
The logic of the current situation is that we should not subsidize North Korea's weapons program
by contributing to the nutritional needs of its people. Of course, what this means is that until such
time as this leadership is eliminated or is altered in its policies, the North Korean people will
suffer; children will grow up nutritionally and developmentally deprived; and the society will be
left with even less social and human capital to rebuild when change finally comes. Worse yet, the
world will have no moral or ethical reason to claim friendship with the North Korean people.
Is it unwise to offer help that in many ways will relieve pressure on a tyrannical regime? It is a
terrible dilemma, but there is little reason to believe that anyone in North Korea is currently
capable of mounting an insurrection. Even more significant, there is every reason to oppose even
the thought of outside invasion to replace the regime. That road leads to a nightmare.
If the world continues to follow the current path, North Korean society and its people will
continue to suffer barbaric levels of misery and oppression. By doing as little as nothing, nothing
good can happen for some time. It is true that if we were to continue to negotiate while offering
the North Korean people our help with their survival needs, we might prolong the life of the
government. Even so, the life of the government is unpredictable and starvation will only
modestly influence that course. Hence, the only choice that does any good is to continue to put
influence on the regime through pressure and dialogue while seeking ways to help the North
Korean people with their food needs. In the end, at least the world can say it did not fold its
hands and watch while the children of North Korea starve to death. When all choices lead to
something bad, then choose the one that at least does some good.
This is my point of view. At the same time, I do no think anyone can be really confident in this
set of circumstances of the perfect or right answer. So, to my mind, the best answer is the one
that brings some help and relief to the real victims of the current policies and leadership of the
North Korean regime.
Tony Brunello
Eckerd College
St. Petersburg, FL
If we had an international body that had the power to prevent the powers in a country from
committing human rights violations, both internally and externally, then the issue of withholding
food donations from North Korea would be easily solved. (Of course, the U.S. would find itself
subject to some serious charges in that case, as would many other nations of the world.)
Since there is no agreed upon international authority, the most logical way of looking at the
problem is by being practical. Withholding food is unlikely to deter the authorities in North Korea from building weapons, if that's why nations are reluctant to provide donations.
Rather, the authorities almost certainly have the power to force the people of North Korea to live
under even more miserable conditions than those presently existing. (For example, sanctions
didn't stop Saddam Hussein from war, poison gas, etc.)
Therefore food should be provided, simply on humanitarian grounds (since there will be little
effect on policy from withholding). Certainly, North Korea's power is minor compared to that of
the Western developed nations, as well as China and Japan, so providing food won't appreciably
alter the balance of power.
Charles Freifeld
Brookline, MA
Professor of statistics Leslie Kish pointed out: "the statistician's definition of an optimist is
someone who believes that the future is uncertain." But there is one certainty: There is no future
for dead people.
Second, the idea that if we feed those starving in North Korea then its government won't have to
(but can instead limit its expenditures to pursuing lousy goals, like providing itself--unlike
Iraq--with a nuclear deterrent) contains the implicit assumption that it will spend resources to
feed its people if we don't. Where is the evidence for that assumption? The available evidence
appears to contradict it.
So feed.
Robyn M. Dawes
Charles J Queenan, Jr. University Professor
Carnegie Mellon
Pittsburgh, PA
What ought the UN and its member nations do to feed the North Korean people without
providing aid and comfort to the North Korean Government? This is a simple question fraught
with traps for the unwary.
The "pure humanitarian" might opt for food shipments, no strings attached. The support for such
an approach is that it achieves the goal of alleviation of suffering of the North Korean people.
However, directly or indirectly, such an approach is going to play right into the hands of the
North Korean regime, and little, if any, of the food will reach the mouths of those for which it is
intended.
A more realistic approach, assuming that it is politically possible, is to attach a set of strings
necessary and sufficient to accomplish the stated goal of relief shipments, which is to feed the
populace. Simply place the food in the hands of a neutral third party (the International Red Cross
comes to mind), together with sufficient logistical support to enable the agency to place the food
directly in the hands of those for whom it is intended, and instruct the agency to distribute it in
small amounts at frequent intervals. In this way, the food will reach the people, and it would be,
at the very least, a logistical nightmare for the North Korean government to steal some from its
populace to feed its armed forces.
Should the North Korean government decline an offer with such a set of strings, it is relatively
easy to conclude that it has no interest in feeding its people. The UN and its member states may
then withdraw further relief supplies without further ado, as the strings are legitimate. Left to its
own devices, sooner or later the North Korean government is going to collapse, and its successor
regime is almost certainly going to be less doctrinaire and more pragmatic.
Robert Jansen
Anaheim, CA
I believe the international community's response is justified. North Korea's population is not
suffering due to the international community, it is suffering due to its own "beloved" leader's
ineptitude. Pressure by the international community does not seem to affect Kim Jong Il, but
perhaps pressure by his own population may have some effect. Who knows, perhaps the people
will rise up and throw the bum out! In the meantime, outside assistance, humanitarian though it
may be, only frees Kim from meeting his own responsibilities and encourages him to pursue his
weaponry.
Jim Flechtner
Findlay, OH
Providing food aid as a humanitarian gesture is a global issue. The wealthier nations have often
been negligent, especially in Africa.
I lack information about the status of negotiations in North Korea. It may be a sound strategy to
provide food again for one more winter, in spite of the diversion of the country's limited
resources to produce atomic weapons.
If the prospects of a negotiated resolution continue to be dim, our actions need to reflect the fact
that North Korea has been in a virtual state of war with the South and with us, as their ally. The
question of whether or not to bail out this oppressive regime one more time needs to be reviewed
with this strategic issue in mind. The entire population has had its life ruined for several
generations by the lack of concern of its ruler for its welfare.
Is it fair to prop up this rule once again? Or should world food aid resources be used in other
areas of food shortage? These issues need to be considered when the decision is made to provide food aid once again. The decision needs to be communicated to the North Koreans through a
media campaign.
Joseph W. Eaton
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
Ah, the sins of the fathers. I do not know the answer, but my instincts tell me that food should be
brought by relief workers and the North Koreans should see clearly where it is coming from, i.e.,
their friends and not their government. But I can't help wondering, what if Herbert Hoover et al.,
had not bailed out the Soviets in the 1930's? Might the Soviet Union have fallen? If so, many
more lives would have been saved in the course of the next 50 years (and some of them
American lives), had that miserable regime fallen earlier rather than later.
Christina Jeffrey, Ph.D.
Independent Scholar
Spartanburg, SC
One challenge with offering solutions to the difficult problems on the world stage is that they by
definition seem rather impractical and naive. But here goes: Offer food to the innocent North
Korean citizens in return for some North Korean land which would then become a special
UN-operated nation or political region. Place no limit on how much land could be peacefully
transferred. Critically, the region would revert back to North Korean rule should their weapons
program end. The idea of course is to let the North Korean citizenry enjoy a potentially better
operated government. Obviously what makes this proposal naive is that the transfer of land has
historically required war.
In addition, I would like to see some settled world debate about why some countries get to have
nuclear weapons but not others. In my opinion this is a difficult double standard that motivates
North Korea's present thinking.
Adam White
Student of political philosophy
St. Paul, MN
The World Food Programme should not be confused with the pretentious banality of the U.S.,
and by implication its stooge the U.N., of destroying weapons of mass destruction. In other
words, the World Food Programme is one thing, and "disarmament" - nuclear or otherwise, is
quite another thing. The implication of what I have said is the world is not justified in reducing
or withholding the food supplies - free, subsidized, or whatever - to any country and starve its
people merely because it is the dictate of the nuclear-powered countries, especially the U.S., that
other countries should not have any nuclear pile up. These countries can be deterred from going
nuclear only if the other countries, especially the U.S., destroy their nuclear pile up and stop
destroying countries on one pretext or another as the U.S. did in Iraq on the pretext of destroying
its WMD, and ended up destroying Iraq and satisfying the bloated ego of George Bush.
P. Radhakrishnan
Professor of Sociology
Madras Institute of Development Studies
Chennai, INDIA
************************************
We apologize if you received this message in error. To be removed from this list send the
message "signoff comnet" to listserv@hermes.circ.gwu.edu or reply to this message with the
word "remove" in the subject line.
The Communitarian Update is compiled by Emily Pryor. Please consider forwarding the Update
to others who may be interested.
|
